For one women it seems, the biological work of mothering continues even well after menopause:
A woman said to be 70 years of age has given birth to twins in India’s northern Uttar Pradesh state after taking IVF treatment… The couple were so desperate for a male heir that they spent their life savings and took out a bank loan for IVF.
Omkari Panwar already has two daughters and is a grandmother to five children. “We already have two girls but we wanted a boy so that he could have taken care of our property. This boy and girl are God’s greatest gift to us,” Omkari said. [Link]
That’s right – she got pregnant at age 70 so she could produce a male heir! This boy isn’t even going to be able to take care of its parents in their old age, they’re already there. The sole reason for his conception was so that he could inherit the property.
While I shake my head in confusion at this (why do you care who inherits after you’re dead – you’re dead, right?), is the average American any better? It turns out that they have a strong preference for female children when they adopt:
… there are about 105 boys for every 100 girls in the general population of biological children under the age of 18. Adopted children … [however, have] 89 boys for every 100 girls. What’s more, adopted children under the age of 6 constitute a group where there only are 85 boys for every 100 girls…. the sex ratio of adopted children goes still further off-kilter if you look only at international adoptions… Girls make up about 64 percent of all children adopted by Americans outside the United States. That’s a mere 56 boys for every hundred girls. [Link]
When adopting abroad, Americans have a 2:1 preference for girls over boys. And that’s not a matter of supply, it’s purely demand:
It doesn’t matter if they’re adopting from China, where girls far outnumber boys; from Russia, where the numbers are about even; or from Cambodia, where there is typically a glut of orphan boys and a paucity of girls. Everywhere, demand tends to favor the feminine. [Link]
There are good reasons to tsk over the desi preference for boy children. Should we do the same when it comes to the American preference for girl children when adopting?
This beta was so impressed by your aggression as to grow a vagina and ovaries right now. Next step: Parading all over 5th avenue.
50 · HMF said
HMF dispensing comedic advice!!? I guess those who can’t do, teach.
This beta was so impressed by your aggression as to grow a vagina and ovaries right now
well you definitely have the lack of logic. Chris ROck just got a case of the measels as someone of low comedic skill and social insight used his name.
What is measels? Is that a disease acquired by people like you?
Of course. How else could I agree with you from the get go?
29 · Harbeer said
Harbeer, I agree with you, the fact that this “male heir” may be inheriting a legacy of debt and the absence of a true childhood as the burden of taking care of elderly parents will take precedence seems to be ignored in the larger discussion on the quest of and the morality of seeking a male child at any cost.
How come women can play the “we do it for them” card but we can’t?
You sound a lot like like white people who whine about “reverse racism.” From your posting history on this site you seem to think that women making sexually selective choices constitutes some form of privilege, when in fact that’s a basic right all humans should have. Men can and do sexually select their mates as well, but I don’t hear you railing against the expression “no fat chicks.”
You also act as if women must justify their sexual selections and “be honest” about their motivations, but this is a form of entitlement on your part – unless you are actually fucking somebody, or you suspect a crime is being committed, you are not owed an explanation of their sex life.
From your mechanistic descriptions of women as oil rigs and men as ATM machines on the Anita Jain thread, you seem to have a very mechanistic, essentializing view of the sexes, rather than one that is based on true experience of human diversity.
55 · Daisy said
Uh! Is that what you call social hierarchy HMF? (Thank you Daisy.)
34 · HMF said
Ye gods, I missed this one…OK, one last time: open a biology textbook. Seriously. The sex hormones activate biomolecular receptors, they are not receptors in and of themselves.
No more on the topic from me.
With the the population in India growing by leaps and bounds, why would they want more kids? (of course this discussion is also about male heirs, carrying on the family name.) I would think adoption would be the easiest option. I don’t know how easy it is to adopt a male child and perhaps their age might hinder their chances of adopting. Carrying a child /children at age 70 – it’s not worth the risk but is it is a very personal choice that she is entitled to. She’s very lucky to be have a safe birth at her age.
Since the elderly couple spent practically all of their life savings to have the twins, I wonder where they will get the money to support and raise the children.
It’s unfortunate that this poor woman’s face now represents this issue for us, when in reality she was probably coerced or ar least pressured into doing this. It’s her husband’s face that should really be up there.
Of course. How else could I agree with you from the get go?
You’ve entered a comic disjunct, sort of a mobius strip, your earlier premise was you were feminine for disagreeing with me, and now you’re feminine for agreeing with me. Try reposting as Chris rock, see if that does anything foryou
OK, one last time: open a biology textbook. Seriously. The sex hormones activate biomolecular receptors,
That’s a technicality, the point is the sex hormones don’t generate any aggressive behavior in and of themselves, as you alluded to here: “I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours.”
Because, as I said earlier, if men are born, ruthless aggressive killers of themselves, any woman with half a brain on her shoulder would stay away from every single one.
You sound a lot like like white people who whine about “reverse racism.”
Racism and gender relations are two completely different animals. first off, races have no biological or evolutionary purpose to mix, social purposes, yes, but this added element adds more more complexity. secondly everything you said was completely irrelevant to the point I was making about women being able to “blame” the various socialized behaviors they have to undertake, excessive attention to makeup, fashion, waxing, beautifcation, and “getting catty” with each other to the presence, existence, and pressures put on them by men, where as men’s behavior is written of as “due to testosterone”
This is noting like reverse-racism, racism is a social construct where one group completely uprooted and transplanted another, ghettoizing them, then establishing institutions for the purpose of maintaining those differnces. Men didn’t bring women over from Oprah land in chains and boats, make them work as slaves for the benefit of their “male society”
From your posting history on this site you seem to think that women making sexually selective choices constitutes some form of privilege,
I’d like to see evidence of this, I’ve always allowed women the freedom to choose on whatever they deem choice-worthy, just be upfront and honest about it, and state when you’re making a superficial decision based on looks, income, or whatever.
What is a disjunct? Is that the opposite of a conjunct? I eagerly await your message in a (Klein) bottle.
I agree. Facts should not get in the way of keeping it real. If it’s good enough for Bush and WMDs, it sure is good enough for HMF and, let’s say, everything.
Your reality locates the brain on the shoulder? That explains EVERYTHING. My sincere apologies. Mom told me never to mock the, er, special.
.
At long last! A Susan B Anthony for the 21st century!
What is a disjunct? Is that the opposite of a conjunct?
It means you feigned agreement with me, saying I was logical, but then undid one of your own comic premises by saying I lacked logic.
I agree. Facts should not get in the way of keeping it real.
Disingenuous quoting, See if I said “the effect is the cause” is not funny, while true, doesn’t support the truth of your inability to address the points.
Mom told me never to mock the, er, special.
Mom must have had a lot of experience.
“At long last! A Susan B Anthony for the 21st century!”
You’ll find a sense of humor before you find a statement of mine that supports inequal treatment for men and women.
essentializing view of the sexes
Yet, this statement of Meena’s isn’t essentializing?
“I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours.”
Why point out when I do it, yet let others slide?
Generating rules from a set of observed instances is done all the time, it’s called induction. Now, you may not believe induction is a sound method of drawing conclusions, but that’s a different story.
“I don’t understand why adopting families favor girls so heavily – any ideas?”
American adoptive parent chiming in. I think there are several issues at play. One is that typically it’s the mother that is the driving force behind the adoption process, and typically mothers have a stronger preference for girls. There is the perception that they will be able to relate better to a girl and be closer to a girl. There is also the “doll baby” aspect of having a little girl – dressing them in cute little outfits and doing their hair and playing princess kind of stuff. I hear this stuff ALL the time when people wonder if I miss having a girl (which I don’t). Another is the perception that there are more girls available for adoption due to gender bias in some sending countries (i.e. India, China). So when people beging thinking about adoption, they go into it with the mindset that they will be matched with a girl. Another is, as was mentioned earlier, the naive assumption that girls are easier to raise. I’m not sure people are even getting as far as thinking about the potential for attachment issues when they deal with that assumption. I see that bias in bio parents as well. That is, until their girls hit the pre-teen years, which are typically one VERY long episode of PMS.
And yet this is true even when people are adopting from countries where there is a balance of children, or even a surplus of boys.
I’ve heard there is a preference for girls for a similar reason that desi parents prefer boys, that they’ll be around to take care of the parents in their old age. Not quite so bluntly put, but they’ll be more involved with the family, more loving, less removed.
“just be upfront and honest about it, and state when you’re making a superficial decision based on looks, income, or whatever.”
But HMF you know this impossible. Power games must continue.
But HMF you know this impossible. Power games must continue.
Why? many guys are honest all the time about how and why they reject one person over the other.
“many guys are honest all the time about how and why they reject one person over the other”
Covert social ranking is the norm among girls, early clique formation using exclusion as a power play
interesting insight, but what does women covertly ranking themselves among themselves have to do with being dishonest to themselves about the way they rank men?
Racism and gender relations are two completely different animals. first off, races have no biological or evolutionary purpose to mix, social purposes, yes, but this added element adds more more complexity.
Translation: “I don’t want to address my own privilege.”
secondly everything you said was completely irrelevant to the point I was making about women being able to “blame” the various socialized behaviors they have to undertake, excessive attention to makeup, fashion, waxing, beautifcation, and “getting catty” with each other to the presence, existence, and pressures put on them by men, where as men’s behavior is written of as “due to testosterone”
a.) Your argument about women “being allowed to complain about” beauty standards is an irrelevant straw man itself. No woman on this thread has made those complaints, and yet you introduced them out of nowhere and started railing against these alleged masses of women parading up and down Fifth Avenue. You might think you don’t sound sexist, but you really do. Although I agree with you that racism and sexism do not have the same history, the similarity is this: your off-topic venom about women reminds me of white people who react to stories of racism by saying “Well, what are the blacks complaining about? They get everything, thanks to affirmative action!” while totally missing the point of the story. It’s clear those white people have a racial chip on their shoulder, and it’s equally clear you have a chip on your shoulder about women. And I know I’m not the first person to tell you this.
b.) You totally ignore the fact that female actions ARE often written off as a result of hormones. How many women’s arguments have been dismissed as the result of her being “on the rag” or “PMS-ing”? I hope you will react with equal fury when you hear either of these expressions used in your presence.
c.) You don’t address that some female behavior IS attributable to male selection pressure, you only complain about the gaps in other people’s complaining. You are dodging the meat of the issue, seemingly unwilling to address that those female complaints might actually have a point, despite the fact that most of your opponents have acknowledged the role of sexual selection in male behavior.
I’ve always allowed women the freedom to choose on whatever they deem choice-worthy, just be upfront and honest about it, and state when you’re making a superficial decision based on looks, income, or whatever.
Oh, you’re OK with women making their own choices, so long as they explain their reasoning in a way that satisfies YOU? And you don’t think that’s a sense of entitlement at all?
Furthermore, it seems as if any woman who expresses a desire or preference that does not fit into your worldview is immediately branded as “dishonest.”
Why point out when I do it, yet let others slide?
Because frankly, I’ve been lurking here for a year and I’ve never seen anyone else with your history of derailing threads with bitter generalizations about the opposite sex.
Translation: “I don’t want to address my own privilege.”
No, I acknowledge male privilege, I just state there is female privilege as well. and gender dynamics does not operate the same way as race given the evolutionary, biological connection between genders. Now I’ve asked before why the feminist separatist movement hasn’t gained traction, the one reason why separatist movements in racial minorities (NOI, marcus garveyism, etc..) haven’t been successful is due to existing infrastructure, and numbers. As Chris Rock said, “MLk and Malcolm counted all the mother fuckers up and decided it wasn’t gonna work” But if males are truly the evil, aggressive, power controlling beings you make them out to be, why would a woman interact with one at all? If you say they can’t help it,well that’s just a mean joke being played on them
a.) Your argument about women “being allowed to complain about” beauty standards is an irrelevant straw man itself. No woman on this thread has made those complaints, and yet you introduced them out of nowhere and started railing against these alleged
This point came about in the context of Meena’s original assertion that male aggression was innate, while an assertion that female attention to beauty, fashion, and general physical appearance is also innate is met with derision. (another imbalance), through the common phrase “Without men, there’d be a lot of fat, hairy, happy women around” or something of that nature.
You might think you don’t sound sexist, but you really do.
I don’t care what you think. If in your view, wanting equality between the sexes is sexist, so be it.
your off-topic venom about women reminds me of white people who react to stories of racism by saying “Well, what are the blacks complaining about? They get everything, thanks to affirmative action!”
no. affirmative action was to correct past imbalances based on a superficial genetic difference that results in more levels of melanin. I don’t say that “women get everything” I ack. male privilege, but I ask for the admission of female privilege as well. and if these privileges are rooted in biology, then so be it, but many women want to have it both ways, that is, male privilege based on socialized behavior, but female privilege based on biology.
How many women’s arguments have been dismissed as the result of her being “on the rag” or “PMS-ing”? I hope you will react with equal fury when you hear either of these expressions used in your presence.
I haven’t seen any scientific studies, like the one I provided to tell me what roles hormones play into female behavior. If I see one that refutes female hormones as a triggering mechanism for female behavior, I’d take that into account.
You don’t address that some female behavior IS attributable to male selection pressure,
Why is it relevant? Then like wise some male behavior [for example, competition, aggression, defeating other males] is attributable to female selection pressure. See equality? Keeping it real? see a trend here?
Oh, you’re OK with women making their own choices, so long as they explain their reasoning in a way that satisfies YOU?
Well this particular point has to do with a commonly held view by many women that they choose mates with more erudition, maturity and unsuperficial qualities. Now if a woman doesn’t do that, but still maintains she does, wouldn’t you consider that dishonest? the explanation isn’t to satisfy me, it’s to satisfy a basic definition of consistency.
Furthermore, it seems as if any woman who expresses a desire or preference that does not fit into your worldview is immediately branded as “dishonest.”
No, it’s the desire to have your cake and eat it too is what’s dishonest. See above.
Because frankly, I’ve been lurking here for a year and I’ve never seen anyone else with your history of derailing threads with bitter generalizations about the opposite sex.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Meena originally posted a statement about males being inherently more reckless and aggressive, to which she further attributed to high testosterone levels. I directly refuted that with scientific research. to which she answered with some tangential point about hormones triggering receptors and not actually being receptors.
66 · HMF said
And a Nostradamus for the 21st century arrives upon us! Glory be!
HMF, my femaleness implies my dishonesty. Surely, you, of all people, should know that. But…
“Boohoo. I was misquoted/misinterpreted/.”
I only said my betaness meant I couldn’t help but agree with you. I did not every say, nor would I ever insinuate that your worldview is imbued of logic.
I only said my betaness meant I couldn’t help but agree with you. I did not every say, nor would I ever insinuate that your worldview is imbued of logic.
Then you have undone the sense of “alpha-ness” if it’s not a woldview imbued with logic.
What? Are we discussing theology and the Epicurean paradox now?
75 · HMF said
Who? Names names. Someone on this thread? Meena? Do you have a quote? Perhaps a prominent feminist said this. Can you provide a link?
Or is just some woman in a bar you met where nearly all the interracial desi relationships are white males and desi females?
Who? Names names.
How many women, at a visceral level, believe deep down that it’s the male’s job to initiate relationships, ie approach first?
And feel this way out of a belief that “that’s the way it is” ie. an artifact of nature.
I would like the door held open but I am equal.
80 · HMF said
I sure many do. Like say camille paglia. but she’s very much in tune with nature and would apply it evenly between the sexes. what you need to do, in order to substantiate your argument, is to find someone who makes this argument but argues social determinsm for the behaiviour of women.the more prominant the person the better.
otherwise, you railing fginst obvious double standards sounds like a strawman argument.
is to find someone who makes this argument but argues social determinsm for the behaiviour of women.
Ok, how many women who believe the premise in post #80, also believe, for example, women around the world are socialized to cook, clean, tend to household chores, and have pressure to sacrifice their career for their husbands?
Ahem! Can we move on? This was a long and interesting side discussion, but it really isn’t moving any more and it’ll discourage others from commenting on the main angle of the thread. Please? HMF has stated his arguments and the people who disagree with him have stated theirs. Can’t we let it go now?
SMI, Out of politeness, I try and answer all questions asked of me.
HMF – Understood, but I’m asking both sides to walk away now that the topic (which branched off of the main point of the post) has been explored quite thoroughly.
Pardon me ?
I have many things to say here;
First, just because the couple could afford modern fertility treatment does not mean they are “wealthy” or highly “educated”. If the picture above is actually the woman being discussed, her attire is the attire typical of not highly educated, not wealthy rural women,though relatively speaking, for her village, she may be on of the wealthier people.
I’m going to make references to some other threads here that have been closed down, but they are related, and I will tie them into this one and the comments HMF is making regarding testosterone levels, please bear with.
First, when we read something like this, a cultural radar goes up of course about the value of male progeny in India. As Jane Of All Trades pointed out, it sometimes appears that all you need to be considered a God in India is a penis, or at least to be considered human enough to inherit and privileged in other ways. (This is going tie into HMF’s theory, which I am coming to believe in).
Considering the other posts, which have been closed down, the one on the book about arranged marriages and the other one about the murders of a daughter and of a daughter-in-law… I want to examine how all of this ties together.
Some people raise objection to culture being brought into it at all by the media, stating that when, for example, white American men murder family members the culture or religion is not brought into question.
I say it is. If however, the white American male subscribes to no particular cultural or religious belief that may reflect on the crime, then what is there to talk about?
In all investigations, a criminal’s mindset and background are looked into. If they are found to favor a particular genre of music that could be a possible catalyst in the crime, that is looked into and reported and bantered about by the media.
If a criminal is asked why they did it and they give reasons that are cultural, religious or part of group-think in any way, it is definetly taken into account.
So if desi men give cultural reasons as excuses or whatever, who is to blame – the media for pointing that out to us? No.
Anyway, this ties in…..bear with…
There are two ways of viewing culture/society ; emperical or interpretive.
Emperical seeks to know who, what, when, and where.
Interpretive seeks to know WHY?
To understand an individual or a people as a whole, the question WHY must be asked.
OK. We see that people do certain things and have certain beliefs, beliefs about men’s roles, women’s roles, whatever. But WHY do they have these beliefs and why do they act like they do? This is the interpretive method.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, all is dependent-arising.
One of the biggest flaws of the multi-culti sector is their naivity that somehow all cultures, societies and tradtions are EQUAL. Therefore, if truth be told, they cannot take a stand against anything.
The fact is that not all worldviews are equally good or equally bad.
An ethno-centric worldview is relatively better than an ego-centric one and a world-centric view is relatively better than an ethnic-centric one, because it embraces all.
Therefore we can say that the world-centric view is better than the Nazi view, but the Nazi view better than the soley ego-centric view, since it seeks the good of a larger community than just one person. (Throwing in some Ken Wilber there for you.)
Coming to the preference for males in India. Do any of us see how such a worldview can in fact lead to this???
It’s interesting how Opinionated’s comment # 204 on the Arranged Marriage Book thread mentiones “izzat” in reference to how people in India expect wives to behave. I assume Opinionated agreed with them, because that is it was presented in her comment.
It is also interesting how she made that comment just one day before Ennis posted about izzat and murder. I wonder if she sees any connection?
I will qoute her here;
Now…
On to HMF’s theory and I’ll try to connect the dots….
HMF asserts that testosterone levels rise in men in accordance to the expectations of women for them to perform in various categories/functions.
Get this;
If that is true, wouldn’t it make sense that a culture that does not require it’s men to proove themselves in anyway to get anything of true values – such as inheritance, a wife, respect, etc… those cultures would produce men who are not high in testosterone and hence the ma/beta males that HMF says desi women pass up in favor of the alpha male of the West???
If, as Jane Of All Trade asserts, all you need is a penis, then where is the impetus to prove yourself in any sphere?
You don’t need to work out to get a hot bod to attract a mate because you will be given one by default by the grace of the arranged marriage system.
You don’t need to compete with your sisters in order to prove your responsibility and trustworthiness to your parents in order to get the inheritance, you will get it regardless.
You don’t need to work on becomeing “sensitive” to women, or useful in household chores or anything, because again, you have a penis and will served by the female family members and get a wife regardless.
So then is the theory correct that such males have lower testosterone levels and are in fact beta (in more ways than one), as compared to say, the average man in America who in fact has to prove himself in order to get that inheritance or attract that mate.
I think HMF is onto something and this is something that I myself wondered and tried to find stats for a few years ago when I was trying to make sense of all my experiences abroad. (stats for various testosterone levels throughout the world).
Anyway, I would also say that in cultures or groups where there is high level competition between men for women, testosterone levels are higher.
I’m thinking about groups of people where sexual activity amongst multiple partners is the norm. Where the women have and take advantage of the choice of sleeping with alot of different men, those men, in response to that competition, have increased testosterone levels.
Anyway, this is just me taking HMF’s theory to the next level, but I’m beginning to see where he’s coming from.
And PS; Om Shanti’s # 5 comment above made my skin crawl with her/his innocence;
How merciful. A man “let” a grown adult women do something. Yikes! Since when are we ok with letting that mentality slip by?
But I understand she/he was innocent to the underlying notions behind such a statement.
OK. I hope somehow all of this made sense and tied together.
I never take it there until someone else takes it there first. And those weren’t questions asked of me politely, if you go back to each one of those you’ll see belligerence was involved in the inquiry.
Oh yeah, and the statement that was going to tie HMF’s and my additional theory together, but which I forget to type is;
And if all of the above is true, doesn’t it make perfect evolutionary sense that women prefer men from cultures where simply having a penis is not enough and they actually have to prove themselves, to those that don’t.
Now that is a Carrie question right there….
(answer: i know i do!)
90 · Dependent Arising said
well, the weird steve sailor does an in depth analysis of interracial marriage, notices that white and black men are the winners and asians the losers (though i think he means east asains) and finds that the major factor is muscularity and body fat percentage. as plausible as anything else.
I would like the meals to be cooked but I am equal.
4 · bindu said
Well, this is anecdotal, but I’ve known a few families that adopted and, apart from one that was simply infertile, they all shared the same motivation: the wife wanted a daughter, but after conceiving 2 or 3 boys the natural way, they decided to opt for an easier, surer way of obtaining a female child. I.e., the desire for a female child is what motivated them to adopt in the first place. It’s not that they decided they wanted to adopt, and THEN decided to go for a female. It would be interesting to know if the preference for adopting females is present in infertile couples, or if it’s limited to fertile couples who already have boys. Similarly, it would also be interesting to know what the overall gender ratio in adoptive families with fertile parents ends up being. If fertile adopters really are just trying to balance out a surfeit of male children, then we’d expect these families to still be stilted towards the male end, despite the female preference in adoption.
In India men don’t really open doors for women anyway.
But the women still cook!
So I’ll take the alpha western male who had to work on himself in order to land just a girlfriend in high school. Chances are he opens doors and cooks to boot.
So I’ll take the alpha western male who had to work on himself in order to land just a girlfriend in high school. Chances are he opens doors and cooks to boot.
Chances are he ultimately thinks you eat monkey brains and just wants an exotic f*ck as well.
75 · HMF said
Not to derail the thread. but next time post some ACTUAL scientific research instead of that link which said nothing to me, not where the article was from, who did the study, etc. And if you actually knew what I was talking about you would realise my point was not tangential in the least, it is pretty vital to understanding the mechanism behind these compounds. But I guess that gasp, reading any scientific research would make your world full of preconceived notions come crashing down.
That is all.
but next time post some ACTUAL scientific research instead of that link which said nothing to me,
The link was to a book titled “war and gender” the footnotes included links to various science articles, including SCIENCE magazine
And if you actually knew what I was talking about you would realise my point was not tangential in the least,
Explain it to me then. Earlier your contention was :
“I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours.”
then after I posted the article, you made the statement :
“The sex hormones activate biomolecular receptors, they are not receptors in and of themselves.”
which sounds strikingly different than “testosterone stimulates such behaviours”
which I think is a tangential technicality , it’s you initially saying, “Jim killed Bill with a gun”, and I provide a police report that says, “Bill killed Jim with a gun”, and you retort with, “No, the bullet from Bill’s gun killed Jim”
” reading any scientific research would make your world full of preconceived notions come crashing down.”
Why would anyone preconceive anything, all of my conclusions have come from observation, discussion, data, and personal experience. I invite you to present your [current] position if you can.
“That is all.”
Not that I mind, but that was all 6 messages ago.
Here is one of the articles referred in this book, by a tulane dept of psychology researcher:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112414618/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
It is not, due to the machinery which is initiated by the binding of a hormone to a biomolecular receptor, causing a conformational change and a messenger cascade, etc etc etc leading ultimately to the development of certain behaviours on a macro level.
resumes lurking
It is indeed a mean joke that HMF has been put in a world where he is constantly lied to by women, kept down by the white man, and harassed by the general public.
Why is HMF not allowed his personal separatist movement? Shouldn’t we all stand behind such a non-sexist, non-racist, all around nice guy?